Is it ‘over for Solana’? 97% network activity crash sparks fresh debate

AmbcryptoPublished on 2025-12-22Last updated on 2026-07-05

Abstract

Solana’s key network activity driver, memecoins, has cratered by over 90% and dragged the price with it.

Solana’s network activity has dropped by 97% in Q4 2025, and SOL’s price crash followed too.

From a peak of over 30 million active traders in late 2024, the network’s traction has dropped to less than 1 million monthly traders in 2025.

One analyst wondered whether it was “over for Solana” amid muted activity.

Although the contraction in trading volumes in late 2025 was a broader market trend, with Bitcoin price falling by over 30%, Solana’s [SOL] case was a little more nuanced.

Solana memecoins: A risk or test bed?

Solana and Hyperliquid have been key success stories this cycle. SOL, in particular, rallied from $8 to nearly $300, over 35x growth from 2022 cycle lows.

While the chain steadied and minimized network outages, memecoins remained a key revenue driver and traffic.

During the 2025 market rout, memecoins were among the first to be hit. But Solana supporters, like Marty Party, always view memecoins as a ‘test’ for other ‘real-world’ applications.

“Memecoin gamblers left after a successful liveness test, they will be replaced by equity traders and 50m stablecoin users – catch up.”

Even so, the near-term risk of memecoin activity became apparent. SOL’s price has declined from nearly $300 to the yearly $120 support — A 58% price decline during the memecoin lull.

That being said, the chain has garnered some institutional interest, such as Visa for stablecoin settlements. However, the network resilience could be possible if network activity dominance shifts away from gambling.

Solana vs. Ethereum

Perhaps, this could close the revenue gap with Ethereum, which leads in institutional adoption. So far, in 2025, Ethereum has made over $1.4 billion in annual revenue while Solana raked in $5022 million — A 3x difference.

In 2024, however, Solana made $2.5 billion in revenue, suggesting a 5x decline this year. Anatoly Yakovenko called it a “crazy year,” adding that,

“It’s been a crazy year. Can open permissionless protocols actually grow and maintain revenues is still an open question.”

In terms of investor returns, SOL has underperformed ETH by 56% this year, a stark contrast to the over 24% relative gains made against ETH last year.

In fact, Fundstrat projected the SOL price could fall to $50-$75 range in H1 2026.

For analyst Ted Pillows, however, there was a higher chance of a 15% surge to $134-$140, citing a massive $1 billion upside liquidity of leveraged shorts.

Final Thoughts

  • Solana’s key network activity driver, memecoins, has cratered by over 90% and dragged the price with it.
  • Ethereum outperformed Solana in annual revenue threefold, contrary to the 2024 performance.

Trending Cryptos

Related Questions

QWhat was the percentage drop in Solana's network activity in Q4 2025 and what was the corresponding price impact?

ASolana's network activity dropped by 97% in Q4 2025, and this was followed by a significant price crash for SOL.

QAccording to the article, what was a key revenue driver and source of traffic for the Solana network?

AMemecoins remained a key revenue driver and source of traffic for the Solana network.

QHow did Solana's revenue in 2025 compare to Ethereum's, and what was the difference?

AIn 2025, Ethereum made over $1.4 billion in annual revenue while Solana raked in $5022 million, a 3x difference in Ethereum's favor.

QWhat was the projected price range for SOL in H1 2026 according to Fundstrat?

AFundstrat projected the SOL price could fall to the $50-$75 range in H1 2026.

QWhat contrasting performance did SOL have against ETH in terms of investor returns between this year and last year?

AThis year, SOL has underperformed ETH by 56%, which is a stark contrast to the over 24% relative gains it made against ETH last year.

Related Reads

Li Fei-Fei's Latest Long-Form Article: When Video Generation, Robotics, and NVIDIA All Call Themselves World Models, We Need a Taxonomy

In a new article, Dr. Fei-Fei Li addresses the widespread and often inconsistent use of the term "world model" in AI. She proposes a clear, functional taxonomy rooted in the classic Partially Observable Markov Decision Process (POMDP) loop (agent → action → state → observation → agent). According to this framework, current systems called "world models" are different projections of this loop, categorized by their primary output: 1. **Renderers**: Output observations (pixels). Their goal is visual fidelity for human consumption (e.g., video generation models like Sora). They are the most commercially mature but are limited by a focus on appearance over physical accuracy. 2. **Simulators**: Output states (geometric, physical, dynamic representations). They provide a structurally accurate world for both human professionals (e.g., architects) and computational agents (e.g., robots for training). Li argues simulators are the crucial, underappreciated bridge, as they can underpin both rendering and planning. 3. **Planners**: Output actions. Given an observation and a goal, they decide what an agent should do next (e.g., robotic action models). This area is highly promising but remains the least mature for real-world deployment. Li highlights a key trend: the boundaries between these three categories are beginning to blur, as they all rely on a shared underlying understanding of geometry, physics, and dynamics. The logical endpoint is a unified world foundation model capable of switching between rendering, simulation, and planning based on downstream needs. This convergence, she concludes, is central to advancing spatial intelligence—enabling machines not just to talk about the world, but to truly understand, imagine, and interact with it.

marsbit1h ago

Li Fei-Fei's Latest Long-Form Article: When Video Generation, Robotics, and NVIDIA All Call Themselves World Models, We Need a Taxonomy

marsbit1h ago

Forbes Feature: Stablecoin Cross-Border Payments Are Faster, But Not Yet Cheaper

A Forbes feature delves into the state of stablecoin-based cross-border payments, noting rapid growth but a key shortfall: while faster and more accessible, they are not yet cheaper. At a recent industry conference in Mexico City, optimism about technology, regulation, and volume was tempered by discussions with practitioners. The core issue is liquidity. Traditional FX brokers charge 60-70 basis points, and stablecoins promise to slash this to 2-5 basis points. However, this theoretical cost advantage cannot be realized until deep liquidity pools are established at scale, requiring significant institutional capital inflow. A major adoption barrier is trust. Businesses often rely on long-standing relationships with traditional brokers, valuing reliability over marginal cost savings. This shift will be gradual. Furthermore, successful companies in the space are not positioning themselves as replacements for legacy systems like SWIFT, but as complements. They leverage stablecoins for speed while using traditional rails for their standardization and reliability in ensuring accurate payment details—a critical factor for supplier payments to avoid customs issues. Companies like Caliza, experiencing high monthly growth, exemplify this hybrid approach. The industry anticipates consolidation, as long-term viability will depend on securing the essential trifecta: proper licensing, robust fiat on/off-ramps, and deep liquidity. Without these, firms risk being mere intermediaries rather than building sustainable businesses.

marsbit1h ago

Forbes Feature: Stablecoin Cross-Border Payments Are Faster, But Not Yet Cheaper

marsbit1h ago

Li Feifei's Latest Article: When Video Generation, Robotics, and NVIDIA All Claim to Have 'World Models,' We Need a Taxonomy

"World Model" has become a widely used yet ambiguous term in AI. Drawing from the classic POMDP framework (agent → action → state → observation), this article proposes a functional taxonomy to clarify the concept. It identifies three distinct types, categorized by their output in the perception-action loop: 1. **Renderers**: Output visual observations (pixels). These models, like advanced video generators, prioritize visual fidelity but often lack underlying physical accuracy. 2. **Simulators**: Output the state of the world (geometry, physics, dynamics). They provide a structurally accurate representation for professionals (e.g., architects) and serve as training environments for robots and AI agents. 3. **Planners**: Output actions. Given an observation and a goal, they determine what an agent should do next, closing the perception-action loop (e.g., vision-language-action models). While renderers are currently the most commercially mature and planners are the most aspirational, the article argues that **simulators are the crucial, underappreciated hub**. By working at the level of geometry and physics, a simulator can project upwards to create visuals for humans and downwards to predict action consequences for agents. The future lies in the convergence of these three functions. Emerging research and products, like World Labs' Marble model which outputs both visual splats and physical collision meshes, are beginning to blur these boundaries. The logical endpoint is a unified world foundation model capable of rendering, simulating, and planning based on a shared understanding of spatial and temporal structures—ultimately enabling machines to understand, imagine, and interact with the physical world.

链捕手1h ago

Li Feifei's Latest Article: When Video Generation, Robotics, and NVIDIA All Claim to Have 'World Models,' We Need a Taxonomy

链捕手1h ago

Trading

Spot

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of SOL (SOL) are presented below.

活动图片